Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Voorhees v. State, 627 N.W.2d 642.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mark Andrew Huyber Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court may nonetheless consider the claim on direct appeal if the record is “sufficient to allow proper review.” d 642, 649 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Terence Duane Maurstad Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[M]atters of trial strategy, including which defenses to raise at trial, will not be reviewed later for competence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alan Joseph Schiller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Scott Alan Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(addressing claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal where the existing record was sufficient to determine those claims without any additional fact finding).
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
Buskey v. Am. Legion Post 910 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2018
See Voorhees v. State , , 647 (Minn. 2001).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. G. H., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Voorhees v. State , , 649 (Minn. 2001) .
Kauser Mohamoud Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Elaine Quirt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(noting that while an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must generally be raised in a postconviction petition, we may consider such claims for the first time on appeal if the record is adequately developed).
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; (“[M]atters of trial strategy, including which defenses to raise at trial, will not be reviewed later for competence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Wayne Downing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
19 must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” (quotation omitted) (alteration in original).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
See, (concluding that remand was unnecessary when the record was sufficient to determine the postconviction claim without additional fact-finding); Penn Anthracite Mining Co. v. Clarkson Sec.
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
In order to succeed in asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Bruestle must demonstrate (1) that his counsel’s performance “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ ” and (2) “ ‘that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for [his] counsel[’s] errors.’ ” (); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
Voorhees v. State (Voorhees II)
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, (“a postconviction hearing is necessary only when the record is not sufficient to allow proper review of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.”); review denied (Minn. Feb.
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by